Paper · 2019 · Frontiers in Plant Science

Fungicides and the Grapevine Wood Mycobiome: A Case Study on Tracheomycotic Ascomycete Phaeomoniella chlamydospora Reveals Potential for Two Novel Control Strategies

Giovanni Del Frari; Alex Gobbi; Marie Rønne Aggerbeck; et al.

7
claims
16
verbatim quotes
26
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Phaeomoniella chlamydospora is a tracheomycotic fungus that colonizes the xylem of grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.), causing wood discoloration, brown wood streaking, gummosis and wood necrosis, which negatively affect the overall health, productivity and lifespan of vines. Current control strategies to prevent or cope with P. chlamydospora infections are frequently ineffective. Moreover, it is unclear how fungicides commonly applied in vineyards against downy and powdery mildew agents affect the wood mycobiome, including wood pathogens such as P. chlamydospora. In this study, we used next-generation sequencing to assess the effects of foliar spray of grapevines with inorganic (copper oxychloride and sulfur), synthetic (penconazol and fosetyl-aluminium) and natural (Blad) fungicides currently used against the downy and powdery mildews. The subjects of our investigation were (i) the resident wood mycobiome, (ii) the early colonization by a consortium of fungal wood endophytes (ACEA1), (iii) the wood colonization success of P. chlamydospora, and (iv) the in planta interaction between P. chlamydospora and ACEA1, under greenhouse conditions, in rooted grapevine cuttings cv Cabernet Sauvignon. The data obtained suggest that the resident mycobiome is affected by different fungicide treatments. In addition, the early colonization success of the endophytes composing ACEA1 varied in response to fungicides, with relative abundances of some taxa being over- or underrepresented when compared with the control. The wood colonization by P. chlamydospora comported significant changes in the mycobiome composition and, in addition, it was greatly affected by the foliar spray with Blad, which decreased the relative abundance of this pathogen 12-fold (4.9%) when compared with the control (60.7%) and other treatments. The presence of the pathogen also decreased considerably when co-inoculated into the plant with ACEA1, reaching relative abundances between 13.9 and 2.0%, depending on the fungicide treatment applied. This study shows that fungicides sprayed to prevent infections of powdery and downy mildews have an effect on non-target fungi that colonize the endosphere of grapevines. We suggest two potential control strategies to fight P. chlamydospora, namely the foliar spray with Blad and the use of ACEA1. Further studies to confirm these results are required.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicide treatments affected the resident grapevine wood mycobiome.

Taxon
grapevinesVitise1
Treatment
different fungicide treatmentse0
Outcome
resident mycobiomee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The data obtained suggest that the resident mycobiome is affected by different fungicide treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1206–1306 · show in text ↑
e1

“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 83–113 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicides changed early colonization success of ACEA1 endophytes.

Taxon
grapevinesVitise1
Treatment
fungicidese0
Interactor
ACEA1e0symbiont
Outcome
early colonization success of the endophytes composing ACEA1e0
Comparator
the controle0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the early colonization success of the endophytes composing ACEA1 varied in response to fungicides, with relative abundances of some taxa being over- or underrepresented when compared with the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1320–1519 · show in text ↑
e1

“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 83–113 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

P. chlamydospora wood colonization changed grapevine mycobiome composition.

Taxon
grapevinesVitise1
Interactor
P. chlamydosporaPhaeomoniella chlamydosporae0pathogen
Outcome
mycobiome compositione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The wood colonization by P. chlamydospora comported significant changes in the mycobiome composition”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1521–1621 · show in text ↑
e1

“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 83–113 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Blad spray reduced P. chlamydospora relative abundance twelvefold to 4.9% versus 60.7% in controls.

Taxon
grapevinesVitise1
Treatment
foliar spray with Blade0
Interactor
P. chlamydosporaPhaeomoniella chlamydosporae2pathogen
Outcome
relative abundance of this pathogene0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
12-fold (4.9%)e0
Qualifier
60.7%e0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“it was greatly affected by the foliar spray with Blad, which decreased the relative abundance of this pathogen 12-fold (4.9%) when compared with the control (60.7%) and other treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1640–1826 · show in text ↑
e1

“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 83–113 · show in text ↑
e2

“wood colonization success of P. chlamydospora”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1007–1052 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ACEA1 co-inoculation reduced pathogen abundance to 13.9–2.0% depending on fungicide treatment.

Taxon
grapevinesVitise1
Treatment
co-inoculated into the plant with ACEA1e0
Interactor
P. chlamydosporaPhaeomoniella chlamydosporae2pathogen
Second interactor
ACEA1e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
presence of the pathogene0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
13.9 and 2.0%e0
Qualifier
depending on the fungicide treatment appliede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The presence of the pathogen also decreased considerably when co-inoculated into the plant with ACEA1, reaching relative abundances between 13.9 and 2.0%, depending on the fungicide treatment applied.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1827–2027 · show in text ↑
e1

“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 83–113 · show in text ↑
e2

“wood colonization success of P. chlamydospora”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1007–1052 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest foliar Blad spray against P. chlamydospora.

Taxon
grapevinesVitise1
Interactor
P. chlamydosporaPhaeomoniella chlamydosporae0pathogen
Outcome
foliar spray with Blade0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“We suggest two potential control strategies to fight P. chlamydospora, namely the foliar spray with Blad and the use of ACEA1.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2199–2325 · show in text ↑
e1

“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 83–113 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest ACEA1 use against P. chlamydospora.

Taxon
grapevinesVitise1
Interactor
P. chlamydosporaPhaeomoniella chlamydosporae0pathogen
Second interactor
ACEA1e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
use of ACEA1e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“We suggest two potential control strategies to fight P. chlamydospora, namely the foliar spray with Blad and the use of ACEA1.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2199–2325 · show in text ↑
e1

“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 83–113 · show in text ↑

inoculation · Phaeomoniella chlamydospora · VitisPositive and negative results

6 papers: 3 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.